Comments on: Albany Didn’t “Cut” the MTA Budget. They Stole From It.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:39:00 +0000

these mta bosses are there to get rich instead of helping to improve the mta they dont. they don’t even encourage investors to invest in the company but after they lose money, they try to increase our fairs so we could pay their debt for them

By: Walter Hook

Walter Hook — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:54:56 +0000

Ben, John, this is very interesting. I had a quick look at the comptrollers report, and it looked like there was only a $14 million diversion of the MMTOA moneys to upstate, but it was pretty confusing. where does the 124 million diversion come from exactly? it is a small part of Albany’s support for the MTA, very small compared to the massive problem of the ballooning debt payments on the fare backed bonds. The 18b money the city has to match, and my recollection was that in recent years the city never put up the matching money, so the state didn’t either. Not sure if this is still the case, but if so, its largely the city’s fault, no? MMTOA is the 1/8% on the sales tax, no?

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 04:55:05 +0000

Well, Fitch's ratings outlook is negative.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:30:05 +0000

“How do the MTA’s bond holders feel about this concept?”

They should be thinking that repaying bondholders is probably more important to the politicians than providing transit service to the serfs, but less important to the politicians than other things.

Chapter 9. We’ve reached the tipping point where there is more to be gained by not paying old debts than incurring new ones, uniting moral outrage over generation inequities with the self interest of members of Generation Greed.

By: glenn

glenn — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:23:59 +0000

How do the MTA’s bond holders feel about this concept?

By: John Kaehny

John Kaehny — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:08:54 +0000

Exactly Cap’n, what is a “dedicated” tax that is not protected by a constitutional “locked box?” In theory, there is supposed to be a high political price paid when Albany passes a tax that is supposed to be “dedicated” to one thing and then spends it on something else. But since there are very few contested elections, and the transit unions don’t seem to yell about it and the press doesn’t understand it, well we have a big problem. Part of the problem is that the press mixes together “dedicated taxes” and other forms of subsidies (which do not exist.) See today’s Daily News for an example.

By: DingDong

DingDong — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:41:04 +0000

Does anyone have standing to sue to enforce this? The MTA might, but I don’t see them bring suit. The Straphangers or someone else representing those subject to service cuts? Do you need standing to sue in New York court?

By: Cap'n Transit

Cap'n Transit — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:49:37 +0000

Thanks for bringing our attention to this. But I still don’t get it. How can the funds be “dedicated” if it’s legal to spend them on something else?

By: The Overhead Wire

The Overhead Wire — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:03:27 +0000

Welcome to the California system. Governator stole billions of dollars that were dedicated to transit and even lost a lawsuit. Doesn’t change a thing.

By: Ray

Ray — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:49:53 +0000

Lawsuit?

By: Glenn

Glenn — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:10:34 +0000

Shouldn’t the TWU & Working Families Party be up in arms over this?

The signs protesting at the MTA hearings should read:

“Stop Raiding MTA budget”

By: Urbanis

Urbanis — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:24:03 +0000

New York State kleptocracy at its finest!

The current level of dysfunction in New York State government is so high that I am beginning to see the appeal of anarchism.

By: Mark Walker

Mark Walker — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:13:59 +0000

Here’s a question for Andrew Cuomo and whoever the Republicans nominate to oppose him: Would you take steps to ensure that MTA taxes go only to the MTA? The current electeds clearly consider themselves invulnerable to criticism so the yet-to-be-electeds may be our only hope.

By: vnm

vnm — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:48:52 +0000

Jonathan, J:Lai: The MTA's subway, bus and commuter rail services are currently funded, in small part, by bridge and tunnel tolls collected on the MTA's seven bridges and two tunnels. This money is collected by MTA employees and transferred within the MTA to help fund public transportation. That money never goes north of the Henry Hudson Bridge's Bronx landing at Spuyten Duyvil. The proposals to toll the untolled East River / Harlem River bridges or to do congestion pricing could/would have transferred the ownership and maintenance of those bridges to the MTA. This would have set up a system more or less identical to the one that already exists. And it could have been done within the existing institutional framework: MTA Bridges & Tunnels, a/k/a the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, might simply expand its maintenance and toll collection duties to river crossings that NYCDOT maintains at taxpayer expense today.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:37:21 +0000

“And since the MTA is a public authority and doesn’t have the same debt service limits that government agencies have, they will continue to borrow and use the capital budget to pay for operational expenses.”

Is everyone else willing to adopt my last ditch approach? Ignore elections that don’t exist, and talk past the state legislature that only listens to its campaign contributors, and tell the bondholder we won’t pay debts imposed without a referendum. The debts are unconstitutional. And they may be “backed” by a particular tax, but the state constitution says the tax revenues of the state MAY NEVER BE CONTRACTED AWAY!!!” Because back in a less evil era, they knew what could happen otherwise.

By: Larry Littlefield

Larry Littlefield — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:34:19 +0000

“Larry, not sure if you were being sarcastic, but this is shocking.”

Nope, it’s a new low.

As is the latest Ravitch plan to defer the pain until his generation has taken all it can, by borrowing money to pay for the state budget.

Just remember, what is every new tax or increase for? Past debts, enriched pensions, retiree health care, and senior benefits younger generations will never see.

What is every budget cut designed to offset? See the above.

What is every debt for? See the above.

Prospect Park hasn’t filled with garbage because I and others donate to it, in addition to the taxes we pay. Perhaps they’ll seize that revenue too. The transit system is going down, and so are the schools. Public service have been destroyed in a bi-partisan manner. In New York, Democrats are happy to “starve the beast” too as long as they get their cut.

By: Shaft

Shaft — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:01:24 +0000

And since the MTA is a public authority and doesn’t have the same debt service limits that government agencies have, they will continue to borrow and use the capital budget to pay for operational expenses. Not only are they getting less of the dedicated funds, but the cost of administering the system becomes much greater.

By: J:Lai

J:Lai — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:53:28 +0000

Larry, not sure if you were being sarcastic, but this is shocking.
I also agree with BicyclesOnly, this raises of the question of what it means for tax revenue to be dedicated to transit (or any other purpose.) If it is legally dedicated revenue, then the actions by the state govt are illegal and it should be sued. If, however, this is legal, then it suggestions the dedication of revenues is based on a handshake and isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

In light of this, I would potentially revise my support for bridge/congestion tolls as a revenue raising mechanism (still may be positive to reduce vehicle traffic) unless there is some stronger, legal, sense in which the revenue remains with the MTA.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:43:02 +0000

If cordon tolls or road pricing are implemented in New York, are those revenues going to be collected by MTA employees, or will they get laundered into the general fund by some other agency?

By: BicyclesOnly

BicyclesOnly — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:31:39 +0000

This post begs the question, “What does it mean for a tax to be a dedicated transit tax?” Obviously, it does not mean the revenues from the tax must be used exclusively for transit. Must state lawmakers demonstrate some financial in extremis condition to divert the revenues from mass transit? Does the “dedication” merely mean that transit needs were referenced in a “whereas” clause in the preamble of the bill? Does it mean anything at all?